Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Otto, the successor to Vagrant

hashicorp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 185 posts

Re: Otto, the successor to Vagrant

#111

Post by PaulHoule »

corndoge wrote: post #102
kcorbitt wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with everything you've said, but I do feel like otto is in danger of being another teetering piece on top of the base-os/virtualbox-os/vagrant(+ansible/chef/puppet)/guest-application tower, which are all leaky abstractions and all cause problems in practice and make debugging complicated. "Accidental complexity" is the right phrase. I can't help but think that what the DevOps world really needs isn't an…

Replace DevOps with "web technologies" in general and your statement rings even more true.

I think the difference is that in the case of web technologies there are a huge number of competing products: we've had everything from CGI to ColdFusion to PHP to Ruby on Rails to Node.js and we are always learning from what people got right and wrong in the past.

Re: Otto, the successor to Vagrant

#112

Post by kvz »

Cacti wrote: post #108
mitchellh wrote: post #43

Hello everyone! I just wanted to note that I'm running around at HashiConf and likely won't be around to answer as many questions or comments as I'd like. But thank you for all the activity around this and we're excited to show this to you today. I want to just give a few key notes, though many other folks around here are right. * For Otto 0.1, we focused on developer experience. We don't recommend deploying for anyt…

What does Otto do that Vagrant doesn't? I mean, Vagrant is pretty good! What do I need Otto for that I can't do with Vagrant and a few scripts (that I'm likely to have to write anyway)?

Otto lets you create infra and deploy to it. So it covers production, not just development. On top of that it offers default stacks for PHP/Ruby/etc that will be maintained by the community. From what I understand, if you're demands aren't too specific, you'll profit from infra/os/apps all set up as a foundation for you app. It detects what app you have and hence you can even have an empty Appfile (similar to Vagrantfile, does more, requires less, hence the magic)

Re: Otto, the successor to Vagrant

#114

Post by bluehawk »

thejerz wrote: post #96

I love Vagrant. At this point, every repo I contribute to has a Vagrantfile. I've turned dozens of coworkers onto Vagrant. That said, I am not a fan of the full Hashicorp ecosystem. Reading through the Otto site, and comments on HN, my first reaction is that my favorite tool has been selected for planned obsolescence.

Otto uses Vagrant under the hood. Vagrant isn't going anywhere as far as I can tell.

Re: Otto, the successor to Vagrant

#115

Post by justizin »

ichilton wrote: post #61
ChuckMcM wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why isn't Otto named Vagrant 2.0 or something? Its confusing to be "abandoning" Vagrant for a new system "Otto" when really all that is happening is that Otto is fixing issues that have come up over time with Vagrant. Why not a migration strategy, some backwards compatibility during the translation, and then move into the future?

It sounds more like a new product, new direction than Vagrant 2.0....

My take: I think the notion is, it will make sense to use Otto directly from the git-go the way it was for Vagrant in the past.

They still work at different levels, with Otto more likely trying to satisfy needs for things like "Ruby" and "Redis" while Vagrant is still more explicit.

Re: Otto, the successor to Vagrant

#116

Post by diggan »

RomanPushkin wrote: post #93
RomanPushkin wrote: post #89

Fails on Windows: the following errors and try again: vm: * The host path of the shared folder is missing: C:Projectsotto-playground * The host path of the shared folder is missing: C:Projectsotto-playground.ottompiledppoundation-consulpp-dev Error building dev environment: Error executing Vagrant: exit status 1 The error messages from Vagrant are usually very informative. Please read it carefully and fix any issues…

Easy to reproduce, latest everything: otto, Vagrant, VirtualBox

"Hah" says the person who is trying to reproduce this in about a month

Re: Otto, the successor to Vagrant

#117

Post by bjwbell »

krick wrote: post #84

I'm not sure if I find it astonishing or expected that somebody finds all that magic good enough to both build that tool and to be thrilled about somebody did. I, for one, find it absolutely unacceptable. The whole point of virtual containers is to have development environment closely resembling production one (not entirely possible, but better than nothing). Your promise that your tool gives me "best possible enviro…

Couldn't agree more. When I was young magic software seemed magic. Then I found out it's 10x harder to debug when it breaks.

Re: Otto, the successor to Vagrant

#118

Post by Cacti »

kvz wrote: post #112
Cacti wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does Otto do that Vagrant doesn't? I mean, Vagrant is pretty good! What do I need Otto for that I can't do with Vagrant and a few scripts (that I'm likely to have to write anyway)?

Otto lets you create infra and deploy to it. So it covers production, not just development. On top of that it offers default stacks for PHP/Ruby/etc that will be maintained by the community. From what I understand, if you're demands aren't too specific, you'll profit from infra/os/apps all set up as a foundation for you app. It detects what app you have and hence you can even have an empty Appfile (similar to Vagrant…

I dunno, I have yet to find a real-world situation where the demands/requirements aren't "too specific". There are always obnoxious little kinks unless you are using some tool from scratch as the basis of your entire operation. Particularly in production!

And I don't see why we need default stacks, don't we already have that with Vagrant? Isn't that the entire point of the Vagrant file and the setup file? You grab an image, you grab the post-setup file, and off you go? Is it really that much work to write a post-setup script to run apt-get and do some config work?

It just seems like we're reinventing the wheel, again. And again, and again. And we invent all these new tools just to go through and spend another 6 years fixing them, improving them, debugging them, cajoling others into using them, etc., instead of just improving the tools we already have.

Or perhaps I'm just in a shitty mood, I dunno. All I know is that the only reason I can use Vagrant in my professional life is PRECISELY because it's not for production deployment, and that's awesome, because it fills a very specific and needful spot that was vacant before. Why do we always have to keep expanding, cannot we not be happy with just really good tools for a really good specific purpose?

P.S. Thanks for the info.

Re: Otto, the successor to Vagrant

#119

Post by nickbauman »

dragonwriter wrote: post #73
ChuckMcM wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why isn't Otto named Vagrant 2.0 or something? Its confusing to be "abandoning" Vagrant for a new system "Otto" when really all that is happening is that Otto is fixing issues that have come up over time with Vagrant. Why not a migration strategy, some backwards compatibility during the translation, and then move into the future?

> Why isn't Otto named Vagrant 2.0 or something? While Otto may be replacing Vagrant as the preferred directly-used tool for most users, its a higher level tool where Vagrant still exists and is used under the covers. Since Vagrant still exists and is maintained and is used by Otto (as well as being usable independently), it would be extremely confusing if Otto was called Vagrant 2.0. > Its confusing to be "abandonin…

I commonly use Ansible with Vagrant: the two play very well together. Otto seems to be an alternative to Ansible.
Post reply on HN